What's worse, I know women younger than her that look like they could be my mother. They're all alcoholics and former cocaine addicts. Oddly, I'm sure I drink too much but most folks peg me at at least ten years younger than I am. Must be all the reefer I smoke that keeps me young (that, and my DNA).
"Porn: anything the powerful doesn't want plebes to have." And here I thought Europe was civilized and we Americans were the dummies. How could they ever enforce this, have a Chinese style firewall around Europe? Do they think all the porn comes from Europe?
Idiots. Just like us, passing totally unenforceable laws.
That would mean removing all recognition of married couples.
Yes, it would.
That would mean that a spouse who doesn't work would be considered as below the poverty line in terms of taxes and eligible for government assistance
Assistance is based on household right now under present regulations, and marriage doesn't play into it. If you're making $75k/yr and your girlfriend lives with you, she's not eligible for assistance. She might get away with it, but so do married couples (I once knew a married woman who did just that).
...that people cannot make medical decisions for their spouse
You can give anyone power of attorney, marriage isn't necessary.
The fact is that civil, secular marriage is a very real thing that people engage in, there's no point in trying to close the barn door on that one.
Clever choice of words, but laws aren't Pandora's boxes. "You can't let gays marry, the barn door's closed on that one." If tax law didn't discriminate against single people (and tax law is changed very often) then again, there would be no need for marriage. Under those circumstances, if two gays wanted to have a ceremony where they swore allegiance to one another, why would anyone be upset? Marriage would mean nothing to an atheist, who could of course have a ceremony, but why would he want to? If two women held such a ceremony that had no force of earthly law, why would anyone object?
There are still laws on the books which make homosexual behavior illegal
Why not work to remove those laws? Those laws are stupid and should be repealed. "Gay marriage" is a distraction from the real problems and only infuriate people. Why make enemies when you need allies?
If you want to talk about things that the government has no business being involved in, let's start with consensual sex between adults and move on from there.
This interested the hell out of me, I'd never heard of it before. Wikipedia says it was used to find the sun on a cloudy day, which would indeed be very useful to navigators with no compasses.
It also said it's Oregon's official gemstone. No sun or magnets in Oregon?
I wouldn't doubt that, you see anti-gay politicians turn out to be caught sucking cock all the time. I haven't read Card's stuff and knew little about the poor bigot, but from what I've seen in the comments he probably is in the closet.
My opinion of the Mormons, whom I never gave much thought to, keeps dropping. First, my adulterous ex-wife converts to Mormonism and my daughters weren't allowed to attend her and the guy she was fucking while she was married to me's marriage because they're not mormon.
Then Mitt Romney gloats about throwing hundreds of people out of work in hostile takeovers so he and his billionaire friends can "earn" even more millions.
Now we have Card calling for the persecution of gays and the violent overthrow of the government? I'm starting to doubt that Mormons are Christians at all.
Where was his outrage at Clinton's and Gingrich's adultery? Instead his rage is against gays, whether practicing gays or not -- being gay is no sin, only acting on it. What gays do is no worse than when I get laid (I'm cursed, women want me in bed and, it seems, hell as well). Where is the Christian spirit of forgiveness, the very cornerstone of Christianity?
However, if I had read his stuff and enjoyed it, I's still read it. But as I haven't, there are a hell of a lot of authors I haven't read.
All the Christians I know, come home from Church and curse up a storm while they call Obama the N word and chug on Beer.
There's nothing wrong with beer, or with salty language, but no Christian would call Obama the "N" word. Your Christian friends should read what Christ actually said, especially since as a Christian, Obama is their brother (if in fact they are Christians and don't just go to church because it's expected).
I had a friend few years ago, he blew his Girlfriends lovers Brains out, nice guy, until he threatened to kill me also.
I could call myself a mad scientist, but that wouldn't make it so. If someone is violent, he is NOT a Christian. You might want to clue your "Christian" friends on that.
And the fact that you lump these all together makes you a terrible person.
And you failed the kintergarten question "what do these three groups have in common?" The answer is, the vast majority of people look down on them. The murderer spent time in prison for his crime, decades ago. Your judgmentalism is exactly what's wrong with your cousins, the homophobics.
I'd say since you resorted to insults, you lost the debate. Goodbye, you poor fool.
Good job of missing the point entirely. Anyone suspected of being a communist was unemployable, and the anti-Card people want Card to be unemployable. Wanting to make a man starve for his views is just wrong.
you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
And you're clearly too emotionally involved in the issue to have a meaningful discussion with. Good bye.
You would learn a lot about what the views of atheists really are as opposed to what you think they are.
That's like saying "You would learn a lot about what the views of atheists really are as opposed to what you think they are." Dawkins is a tame example, I used him because of his fame. There are "atheists" who are really agnostic, and others who would like to see the abolition of all religion. One atheist I know claims to be a Catholic, despite the fact that she's sure God doesn't exist.
The reality of bullying, suicides and ineligibility for employment is much, much worse.
Ineligibility for employment is illegal, as should bullying be. The suicide angle troubles me; I pity gays for that reason (and for that reason suspect homosexuality is a mental disorder). But it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with gay marriage.
I doubt that Mr Card has ever been chased by a pack of thugs and beaten senseless because he came out of the wrong bar at the wrong time. People I know have.
As I mentioned in another comment, if the government stayed out of marriage the whole issue of gay marriage would be moot. Marriage was a religious institution doe thousands of years, and government should have no business in it whatever.
I stopped buying Card new after he did his homosexuality should be illegal but the laws should be selectively enforced ranting, ahem, rather some time ago.
I've heard of him but that's about it, never read any of his stuff. Your comment has me scratching my head -- why don't these guys have the same zeal to put Gingrich and Clinton in jail for adultery? After all, adultery is one of the "Big Ten" Moses brought down from the mountain.
That said, Isaac Asimov was an antitheist, but that doesn't and never did stop me from enjoying his work.
Once again the power of religion blasts the doors right off of any sensible logic.
Marriage is about family. It's about procreation, and as such, the idea of "gay marriage" is illogically silly. What isn't silly is the discrimination, which has nothing whatever to do with gay marriage.
The discrimination isn't against gays, it's against singles. I can no more find a suitable woman than a gay man can, I don't think she exists. Why should a man earning the same as I do pay lower taxes simply because he's undergone what an atheist should consider a silly ceremony? Why should a widow with one child pay higher taxes than a married, childless couple with one breadwinner who earns the same as the widow? All other considerations could be easily overcome with power of attorney and a living will.
Why would an atheist WANT to get married if being single wasn't so stupidly discriminated against? Marriage was always a religious rite, why would an atheist want anything whatever to do with it?
If a gay was a Christian, he'd try (probably as vainly as I do, I'm no saint) to be celibate. And remember, a gay's sins are no worse than mine and quite a bit less than someone like Newt Gingrich or the mammon-worshiping Mitt Romney. Being gay isn't a sin, acting on carnal impulses is. A gay atheist shouldn't want anything to do with a religious rite. It's just illogical.
I'm a Christian, but the US is in no way a Christain nation. For what it;s worth, I have no trouble with gays except for the "ick" factor; what you do is none of my business. Hell, I'm a fan of Queen. I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.
I wouldn't be aghast if Richard Dawkins penned it, why is someone so up in arms about an openly anti-gay guy? He's entitled to his opinion. This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.
Human interaction can be invigorating, and psychologically refreshing.
Agreed, and after traveling five hours by myself I'd welcome a chatty desk clerk, especially if he can clue me as to a good place to unwind. But after five hours in a cattle car? I really don't want to talk to any humans I don't know personally, as I've most likely had my fill of them.
I think that 3/4 of the citizenry are too shortsighted to realize the long-term benefits of actually adhering to the principles of copyright
The principles of copyright were discarded in the last century. Copyright, at least in the US, was supposed to give inventors and artistists a limited time monopoly on their works so it would enrich society, not fat cat corporate middlemen. Today's copyright laws serve no purpose whatever to society and only serve the corporatates. There are no long term societal benefits of today's copyright laws. Introduce sane laws and sane people will respect them. Today's laws deserve no respect.
Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time.
So is smoking pot. Some laws are just wrong; Woodstock should be in the public domain.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions.
The same goes for your friends and family who smoke pot? You're OK with that waste of tax dollars and human lives?
I would speculate that the ratio of people who download infringing content to people who never do is probably at least 3 to 1
So you think that a law that in your words 3/4 of the citizenry disobeys is somehow a just law?
many I've met naively believe that there can't be anything wrong with what they are doing on the grounds that so many other people do it all the time
No, it's because the activity harms nobody. As Cory Doctorow points out in one of his books, nobody has ever lost a dime to piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity. Every study done that wasn't bankrolled by the MAFIAA liars say that piracy HELPS sales.
Copyright law used to say that a work must be "affixed in tangible form." Digital copies swapped noncommercially should not be infringing, and the copyright term should be cut back down to where it was in 1900. If these changes were made, your friends would be legal.
BTW, I'm a "content creator" myself. My first book is out in e-edition only (and free), if I make any money on it, it will be from sales of dead-tree books. Without my posting it on the internet (and I seeded Pirate Bay with it myself), I wouldn't have a chance of selling a single copy.
Today's copyright laws are harmful to the actual artists and writers, and are geared solely to keeping the gravy train running for the parasitic corporate middlemen who add little or no value to a work.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, the book I'm writing now is even worse (so far). It contradicts itself! (see my journal)
What's worse, I know women younger than her that look like they could be my mother. They're all alcoholics and former cocaine addicts. Oddly, I'm sure I drink too much but most folks peg me at at least ten years younger than I am. Must be all the reefer I smoke that keeps me young (that, and my DNA).
You can thank reefer for Nobots.
I saw this on TV this morning... damn but Carrie Fisher looks older than me. You guys who thought the prequels ruined your childhood...
"Porn: anything the powerful doesn't want plebes to have." And here I thought Europe was civilized and we Americans were the dummies. How could they ever enforce this, have a Chinese style firewall around Europe? Do they think all the porn comes from Europe?
Idiots. Just like us, passing totally unenforceable laws.
That would mean removing all recognition of married couples.
Yes, it would.
That would mean that a spouse who doesn't work would be considered as below the poverty line in terms of taxes and eligible for government assistance
Assistance is based on household right now under present regulations, and marriage doesn't play into it. If you're making $75k/yr and your girlfriend lives with you, she's not eligible for assistance. She might get away with it, but so do married couples (I once knew a married woman who did just that).
You can give anyone power of attorney, marriage isn't necessary.
The fact is that civil, secular marriage is a very real thing that people engage in, there's no point in trying to close the barn door on that one.
Clever choice of words, but laws aren't Pandora's boxes. "You can't let gays marry, the barn door's closed on that one." If tax law didn't discriminate against single people (and tax law is changed very often) then again, there would be no need for marriage. Under those circumstances, if two gays wanted to have a ceremony where they swore allegiance to one another, why would anyone be upset? Marriage would mean nothing to an atheist, who could of course have a ceremony, but why would he want to? If two women held such a ceremony that had no force of earthly law, why would anyone object?
There are still laws on the books which make homosexual behavior illegal
Why not work to remove those laws? Those laws are stupid and should be repealed. "Gay marriage" is a distraction from the real problems and only infuriate people. Why make enemies when you need allies?
If you want to talk about things that the government has no business being involved in, let's start with consensual sex between adults and move on from there.
My thoughts exactly.
LOL, nice try, buddy, all I judged was your words. You judged ME.
If you think Vogon is bad, you should hear that one British kid...
I wonder how long it will be before someone digs one up around here.
It isn't that they're rare, it's that we found evidence that the stories of this "magic" stone were true.
That sounds like Vogon, anybody got a babelfish?
This interested the hell out of me, I'd never heard of it before. Wikipedia says it was used to find the sun on a cloudy day, which would indeed be very useful to navigators with no compasses.
It also said it's Oregon's official gemstone. No sun or magnets in Oregon?
THIS is why I love slashdot! Who knew? Not me!
The person who screams "I'M NOT GAY" usually is.
I wouldn't doubt that, you see anti-gay politicians turn out to be caught sucking cock all the time. I haven't read Card's stuff and knew little about the poor bigot, but from what I've seen in the comments he probably is in the closet.
My opinion of the Mormons, whom I never gave much thought to, keeps dropping. First, my adulterous ex-wife converts to Mormonism and my daughters weren't allowed to attend her and the guy she was fucking while she was married to me's marriage because they're not mormon.
Then Mitt Romney gloats about throwing hundreds of people out of work in hostile takeovers so he and his billionaire friends can "earn" even more millions.
Now we have Card calling for the persecution of gays and the violent overthrow of the government? I'm starting to doubt that Mormons are Christians at all.
Where was his outrage at Clinton's and Gingrich's adultery? Instead his rage is against gays, whether practicing gays or not -- being gay is no sin, only acting on it. What gays do is no worse than when I get laid (I'm cursed, women want me in bed and, it seems, hell as well). Where is the Christian spirit of forgiveness, the very cornerstone of Christianity?
However, if I had read his stuff and enjoyed it, I's still read it. But as I haven't, there are a hell of a lot of authors I haven't read.
Apparently I'm more ignorant of Card's views than I thought.
Calling for the overthrow of the government to force biggotry on all of us, is just plain fascist.
Agreed, but you're free to be a fascist, communist, or any other kind of "ist".
I think we should imprison this asshole for sedition.
That, too, smacks of fascism.
Card is a bigoted, ignorant, self important asshole
I certainly don't disagree with that, but aren't all rich and famous people?
People who have never knowingly met a gay person may be swayed by his opinion.
It would be a rare person who had never known someone he knew was gay.
None of them are like the others, except a) they're humans and b) people judge them.
The murderer went to prison for his crime, yet you still judge him. Sad.
I agree it's not a Christian Nation.
If it were, half of Congress would be in prison.
All the Christians I know, come home from Church and curse up a storm while they call Obama the N word and chug on Beer.
There's nothing wrong with beer, or with salty language, but no Christian would call Obama the "N" word. Your Christian friends should read what Christ actually said, especially since as a Christian, Obama is their brother (if in fact they are Christians and don't just go to church because it's expected).
I had a friend few years ago, he blew his Girlfriends lovers Brains out, nice guy, until he threatened to kill me also.
I could call myself a mad scientist, but that wouldn't make it so. If someone is violent, he is NOT a Christian. You might want to clue your "Christian" friends on that.
And the fact that you lump these all together makes you a terrible person.
And you failed the kintergarten question "what do these three groups have in common?" The answer is, the vast majority of people look down on them. The murderer spent time in prison for his crime, decades ago. Your judgmentalism is exactly what's wrong with your cousins, the homophobics.
I'd say since you resorted to insults, you lost the debate. Goodbye, you poor fool.
Good job of missing the point entirely. Anyone suspected of being a communist was unemployable, and the anti-Card people want Card to be unemployable. Wanting to make a man starve for his views is just wrong.
you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
And you're clearly too emotionally involved in the issue to have a meaningful discussion with. Good bye.
You would learn a lot about what the views of atheists really are as opposed to what you think they are.
That's like saying "You would learn a lot about what the views of atheists really are as opposed to what you think they are." Dawkins is a tame example, I used him because of his fame. There are "atheists" who are really agnostic, and others who would like to see the abolition of all religion. One atheist I know claims to be a Catholic, despite the fact that she's sure God doesn't exist.
The reality of bullying, suicides and ineligibility for employment is much, much worse.
Ineligibility for employment is illegal, as should bullying be. The suicide angle troubles me; I pity gays for that reason (and for that reason suspect homosexuality is a mental disorder). But it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with gay marriage.
I doubt that Mr Card has ever been chased by a pack of thugs and beaten senseless because he came out of the wrong bar at the wrong time. People I know have.
And what does that have to do with marriage?
As I mentioned in another comment, if the government stayed out of marriage the whole issue of gay marriage would be moot. Marriage was a religious institution doe thousands of years, and government should have no business in it whatever.
I stopped buying Card new after he did his homosexuality should be illegal but the laws should be selectively enforced ranting, ahem, rather some time ago.
I've heard of him but that's about it, never read any of his stuff. Your comment has me scratching my head -- why don't these guys have the same zeal to put Gingrich and Clinton in jail for adultery? After all, adultery is one of the "Big Ten" Moses brought down from the mountain.
That said, Isaac Asimov was an antitheist, but that doesn't and never did stop me from enjoying his work.
Once again the power of religion blasts the doors right off of any sensible logic.
Marriage is about family. It's about procreation, and as such, the idea of "gay marriage" is illogically silly. What isn't silly is the discrimination, which has nothing whatever to do with gay marriage.
The discrimination isn't against gays, it's against singles. I can no more find a suitable woman than a gay man can, I don't think she exists. Why should a man earning the same as I do pay lower taxes simply because he's undergone what an atheist should consider a silly ceremony? Why should a widow with one child pay higher taxes than a married, childless couple with one breadwinner who earns the same as the widow? All other considerations could be easily overcome with power of attorney and a living will.
Why would an atheist WANT to get married if being single wasn't so stupidly discriminated against? Marriage was always a religious rite, why would an atheist want anything whatever to do with it?
If a gay was a Christian, he'd try (probably as vainly as I do, I'm no saint) to be celibate. And remember, a gay's sins are no worse than mine and quite a bit less than someone like Newt Gingrich or the mammon-worshiping Mitt Romney. Being gay isn't a sin, acting on carnal impulses is. A gay atheist shouldn't want anything to do with a religious rite. It's just illogical.
I'm a Christian, but the US is in no way a Christain nation. For what it;s worth, I have no trouble with gays except for the "ick" factor; what you do is none of my business. Hell, I'm a fan of Queen. I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.
I wouldn't be aghast if Richard Dawkins penned it, why is someone so up in arms about an openly anti-gay guy? He's entitled to his opinion. This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.
Human interaction can be invigorating, and psychologically refreshing.
Agreed, and after traveling five hours by myself I'd welcome a chatty desk clerk, especially if he can clue me as to a good place to unwind. But after five hours in a cattle car? I really don't want to talk to any humans I don't know personally, as I've most likely had my fill of them.
I think that 3/4 of the citizenry are too shortsighted to realize the long-term benefits of actually adhering to the principles of copyright
The principles of copyright were discarded in the last century. Copyright, at least in the US, was supposed to give inventors and artistists a limited time monopoly on their works so it would enrich society, not fat cat corporate middlemen. Today's copyright laws serve no purpose whatever to society and only serve the corporatates. There are no long term societal benefits of today's copyright laws. Introduce sane laws and sane people will respect them. Today's laws deserve no respect.
Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time.
So is smoking pot. Some laws are just wrong; Woodstock should be in the public domain.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions.
The same goes for your friends and family who smoke pot? You're OK with that waste of tax dollars and human lives?
I would speculate that the ratio of people who download infringing content to people who never do is probably at least 3 to 1
So you think that a law that in your words 3/4 of the citizenry disobeys is somehow a just law?
many I've met naively believe that there can't be anything wrong with what they are doing on the grounds that so many other people do it all the time
No, it's because the activity harms nobody. As Cory Doctorow points out in one of his books, nobody has ever lost a dime to piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity. Every study done that wasn't bankrolled by the MAFIAA liars say that piracy HELPS sales.
Copyright law used to say that a work must be "affixed in tangible form." Digital copies swapped noncommercially should not be infringing, and the copyright term should be cut back down to where it was in 1900. If these changes were made, your friends would be legal.
BTW, I'm a "content creator" myself. My first book is out in e-edition only (and free), if I make any money on it, it will be from sales of dead-tree books. Without my posting it on the internet (and I seeded Pirate Bay with it myself), I wouldn't have a chance of selling a single copy.
Today's copyright laws are harmful to the actual artists and writers, and are geared solely to keeping the gravy train running for the parasitic corporate middlemen who add little or no value to a work.
The laws need to change.